Well shit, blame it on our CoD-gaming generation, where we love playing the same bullshit for years on end. In my honest opinion, Gamers are not very keen on sudden innovation(or in this case, change) and Nintendo is a business, why the fuck would they do a 180 on the very popular and still high selling (platform)Mario franchise and jeopardize it? Maybe a much-more story focused Mario that is also a platformer, could sell well but who knows?

Who are you to tell us what makes a game great? That is a ridiculously subjective part of the game and ENTIRELY up to the gamer. I could say "RE5 was awesome cause it had so much action. I love action and zombies!" Another gamer will say, " I love RE5 cause black chicks are hot." You can't tell them that those two specific aspects of the game aren't what makes the game special TO THEM.

Matter fact, why not start one of those petitions you Nintendo "hardcore" fans seem to be bring up about EVERYTHING. Go ahead, I'll wait here.

I already linked to the thread OP is referring to, so I'm sorry if you've been living under a rock. There are people here who judge those that expect Mario to have more depth, not even story required, just more newness and mystical elements, and they like laughing about us. This thread is a jab at them, because most of them weren't there when those who started off with Mario saw the value in what made Mario great.

Anyways, I've said this millions of times ITT and I don't want to waste any more time with you.

That wasn't cherry-picking. You made a claim that didn't hold up, that's all there is to it. As an analogy, if someone said that the last four Super Bowls were won by NFC teams and somebody responded that the fourth and last one of them was won by the Ravens, an AFC team, that wouldn't be cherry-picking either.

It's not like there is an abundance of games with good gameplay either. Games that can stand the test of time were always rare. Also, there is more than good gameplay to a good game. There are people who say that if you made a game with identical gameplay and levels to SMB, it wouldn't sell nearly as much. And they are right, although it's not for the reasons they would like to believe. They say it because they are jealous of Mario's and Nintendo's success. They wouldn't admit that Mario is a powerhouse because the content of these games is just that good and leagues ahead of all those wannabe competitors. We've come to a point where a Goomba is more iconic than other companies' flagship characters and that's pretty great.

There's a reason why Mario could spawn plenty of spinoffs and have them be successful. There's a reason why the games (old and new) are still incredibly popular today. If you expect a new Mario game that will offer as much content and excitement as the first game, you will forever be disappointed. Similarly, there's also no way that anything new concerning Star Wars can outdo the original in introducing new content. All that newer works can do is expanding on the foundation, because IPs that captivated so many people's imagination with their initial release had incredibly good content to begin with. Don't believe me that Mario is still great? Well, you can look for alternatives. Right, you already did and had a hard time finding some.

The only thing my thread was mocking was the idea that Super Mario Bros. needs a deeper story. It doesn't need one. Never did, never will. In fact, implementing more story would make the games worse.

Since now it's clear that this is a response thread to mine, I'd like you to link all (or at least some) of the posts of that thread that you thought were uncalled for.

I would say that many people (including myself) are wondering why you were offended by a harmless thread. Skimming through my thread, I can't spot anything that warrants such a response thread.

Somewhat. It's a reaction to some of the "new-school" fans mocking the importance of story and depth in a mario game in Rol's thread yesterday. It sickened me.